Faction/knows about/side logic

[dmarkwick 261]

While reading this thread I got to thinking.

Maybe a better/more appropriate solution would be to apply some more logic to the situation of confused positioning. At it's most simplest, give the vehicle a higher "friendly/enemy" rating than the driver.

I once raised the possibility of friendly fire logic on the A2 forum, and people were generally against it. But, if you as a unit on X side were to suddenly appear in an unexpected place and were seen at distance, in a territory known to be occupied by enemy, it stands to reason that you'd be in danger from your own side sometimes. But, maybe such a feature would be too flaky.

However, the subject of occupying enemy vehicles ought to be more solid: an enemy vehicle is likely to be targeted especially if it is mobile or otherwise active. As such, should the apparent faction of a vehicle take precedence over the faction of the driver/occupier?

*edit*

The same logic as currently exists could reveal the vehicle as "enemy" if it fired upon your own side. Thus removing the possibility of safely mowing down enemy troops in a stolen tank :D

Edited July 7, 2011 by DMarkwick

[Wolfrug 0]

Good thoughts! But perhaps better left to scripting than in-game default AI. Basically, it's possible (and maybe even easy) to script in, but would be nigh-impossible to script out. A module might be a good middle ground.

The problem with this is that it becomes too complicated, in game terms, to "simulate". Maybe during WW2 a stolen Tiger tank suddenly appearing would have led to immediate reprisals - but then what if the people inside the tank would be waving and obviously wearing Allied uniforms? You can't simulate this in Arma (unless you add a lot of extra scripts for it). You'd also phone it in first, wouldn't you: "I'm coming and I've got a stolen tank! Don't shoot me!" -> imagine the absurd amount of extra work needed, just when thinking of voice overs, to get that to work. Also you'd have to be able to make the AI do this automatically when taking over a tank.

That's just one aspect of it. The other is the "suddenly appears" one. This already exists to a small extent for night missions in Arma - if you drive around in an "enemy" car during the night, the enemy is often VERY slow at realizing you're not one of them. But during the day, the logic of this would be quite difficult. You climb into a disabled enemy BMP, in front of your whole squad. Except the AT soldier, who is looking the other way. And then when he looks back, is he supposed to go "OH SHIT ENEMY! KILL IT!", even though all of his friends are just standing around not doing anything, and even though he's fully aware that tank was disabled earlier. This is very human behaviour - practically impossible to simulate for the AI.

And then there's tons of mission-specific stuff. The Resistance steals a bunch of T-80's, because that's the PLAN: yet if you forget to do a whole lot of extra scripting, you'll be killed by your own men when you roll into town after successfully completing your mission. Two T-80's are shooting at one another: how can they know which is which? A human conundrum, but not really an AI one, if you understand what I mean. The AI solution is to shoot -both-, the human solution is probably to shoot -neither-.

Or; you steal a tank, and try to use it to infiltrate enemy territory, but that's ridiculous, since they all know that tank doesn't belong here, and isn't responding to calls anyway. Or maybe they don't! That's up to the mission designer tho, imho, not the AI.

What I think should be done is just to make the "unknown enemy" thing a little more streamlined, so that you can for instance fool the enemy in daytime at least for a little while and at a very long distance, as long as you're not shooting or anything; this already works during night (sometimes too well), but making it work at least for a bit during the day would be quite awesome as well.

Long ranty post. TL;DR is: It'd be really great if the AI would simulate real humans and their faults and foibles to a T, but that just doesn't seem too likely.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[dmarkwick 261]

Good thoughts! But perhaps better left to scripting than in-game default AI. Basically, it's possible (and maybe even easy) to script in, but would be nigh-impossible to script out. A module might be a good middle ground.

A module would be fine. But, I can't think how it is currently possible to script it in? Surely such a script would exist if it were possible? :) Currently the side of the vehicle follows the side of the occupant. To change the apparent side of the vehicle would currently mean changing the side of the unit, and I don't know the ramifications of other game engine logic about that. As an example would your map data change? (lower realism levels.) Would your VOIP channels change?

I think keeping the vehicle side separate from the occupier side (even via a module as you say) would be much preferable.

The problem with this is that it becomes too complicated, in game terms, to "simulate". Maybe during WW2 a stolen Tiger tank suddenly appearing would have led to immediate reprisals - but then what if the people inside the tank would be waving and obviously wearing Allied uniforms? You can't simulate this in Arma (unless you add a lot of extra scripts for it). You'd also phone it in first, wouldn't you: "I'm coming and I've got a stolen tank! Don't shoot me!" -> imagine the absurd amount of extra work needed, just when thinking of voice overs, to get that to work. Also you'd have to be able to make the AI do this automatically when taking over a tank.

To be honest, I think this scenario has less importance than the initial proposal: plus, I think it would be easier to script out than to script in, given that currently we cannot have separate vehicle/occupier sides and we'd need BIS to code it in initially.

That's just one aspect of it. The other is the "suddenly appears" one. This already exists to a small extent for night missions in Arma - if you drive around in an "enemy" car during the night, the enemy is often VERY slow at realizing you're not one of them. But during the day, the logic of this would be quite difficult. You climb into a disabled enemy BMP, in front of your whole squad. Except the AT soldier, who is looking the other way. And then when he looks back, is he supposed to go "OH SHIT ENEMY! KILL IT!", even though all of his friends are just standing around not doing anything, and even though he's fully aware that tank was disabled earlier. This is very human behaviour - practically impossible to simulate for the AI.

Hmm, I still think the gameplay improvements enabled by separating vehicle/occupier sides is worth it, there will always be situations we can imagine where whatever logic is applied falls over.

And then there's tons of mission-specific stuff. The Resistance steals a bunch of T-80's, because that's the PLAN: yet if you forget to do a whole lot of extra scripting, you'll be killed by your own men when you roll into town after successfully completing your mission. Two T-80's are shooting at one another: how can they know which is which? A human conundrum, but not really an AI one, if you understand what I mean. The AI solution is to shoot -both-, the human solution is probably to shoot -neither-.

I would imagine that the AI solution would be to shoot neither, until a definite "knows about" level is reached. The human reaction would probably be to see who naturally won the fight, then observe the actions of the winner :D

Or; you steal a tank, and try to use it to infiltrate enemy territory, but that's ridiculous, since they all know that tank doesn't belong here, and isn't responding to calls anyway. Or maybe they don't! That's up to the mission designer tho, imho, not the AI.

Well, IMO the AI has to have a base from which to act, and I would imagine that an enemy tank turning up at an enemy's base should cause some amount of consternation :) moreso than a friendly tank turning up at a friendly base.

What I think should be done is just to make the "unknown enemy" thing a little more streamlined, so that you can for instance fool the enemy in daytime at least for a little while and at a very long distance, as long as you're not shooting or anything; this already works during night (sometimes too well), but making it work at least for a bit during the day would be quite awesome as well.

Long ranty post. TL;DR is: It'd be really great if the AI would simulate real humans and their faults and foibles to a T, but that just doesn't seem too likely.

Regards,

Wolfrug

I think you're right in that maybe the "knows about" logic could be improved, I still think that unannounced enemy vehicles should be regarded by AI as suspect though.

Edited July 8, 2011 by DMarkwick

[Montanaro 0]

Didn't OFP have the vehicle thing?

I remember a few times being able to take enemy vehicles and driving through enemy lines (even right past soldiers) without being fired on. But if you stopped too close to them they would "figure out" that you were an enemy.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Being killed by friendly AI is the kind of stuff that makes you throw your monitor through the window, and i would not like to see it simulated more than the accidental stuff we have now.

Also, if we have no way of telling the AI (Like we would tell other humans) we are in an enemy vehicle it would limit gameplay possibilities.

[dmarkwick 261]

Being killed by friendly AI is the kind of stuff that makes you throw your monitor through the window, and i would not like to see it simulated more than the accidental stuff we have now.

Yeah this is what came out of the other thread, that people generally didn't wish for increased possibilities of FF, even if that represented a more realistic situation. I just feel that *currently* it is already an unrealistic situation.

To be fair (to my idea) the knowledge that such confused positional situations could result in FF might very well make you play differently, as in more realistically, no more stealing enemy vehicles with impunity :) we would need, as you pointed out, a way to broadcast the situation to AI.

Gameplay wise I might suggest a module, that separated the vehicle and the occupier sides, so as to make it more flexible. I'm struggling to think of a suitable name for such a module that would make sense, maybe "Enemy vehicle constant" or something.

In any case, we'd need the possibility of separating the vehicle & occupants' sides. Which currently I don't think we have. If it were possible, I'd surely make such a module myself :D

Also, if we have no way of telling the AI (Like we would tell other humans) we are in an enemy vehicle it would limit gameplay possibilities.

A conundrum indeed, but realistic? One single new radio command option might solve it. "Friendly captured vehicle at [co-ords]".

[tsb247 0]

I was thinking about something similar to this the other day as well.

With the ability customize/choose your uniform, the door is opened to be able to masquerade as an enemy soldier on the battlefield. I'm hoping that the AI will have some kind of algorithm that will allow them to distinguish uniforms and treat those wearing them accordingly (with some exceptions of course).

Think of the possibilities if a feature like this were put in the game. Can you say, "Espionage???"

[dmarkwick 261]

I was thinking about something similar to this the other day as well.

With the ability customize/choose your uniform, the door is opened to be able to masquerade as an enemy soldier on the battlefield. I'm hoping that the AI will have some kind of algorithm that will allow them to distinguish uniforms and treat those wearing them accordingly (with some exceptions of course).

Think of the possibilities if a feature like this were put in the game. Can you say, "Espionage???"

That's a good point :) maybe the "knows about" variable can become fuzzy, the more enemy stuff you wear, the more your "knows about" is affected. I still would like to see an absolute vehicle side solution though.

[NeMeSiS 11]

A conundrum indeed, but realistic? One single new radio command option might solve it. "Friendly captured vehicle at [co-ords]".

Which gives us the exact same gameplay as we have now, except we have to press an arbitrary button.

If you really want to have these problems i guess you could just make the vehicle's leader switch sides based on knowsabout levels or something, but i really dont see the need for it in the default game.

[dmarkwick 261]

Which gives us the exact same gameplay as we have now, except we have to press an arbitrary button.

Depends on if you have a radio of course... ;)

If you really want to have these problems i guess you could just make the vehicle's leader switch sides based on knowsabout levels or something, but i really dont see the need for it in the default game.

Default game no. But I think there is mileage in the idea, but currently cannot happen because the vehicle's side is taken from the driver's side. Having the vehicle's driver switch sides is a bad idea, if the two cannot be separated then the idea is a no-go.

I guess that what this thread is asking for is the separation of vehicle and driver sides, with default behavior being the current behavior, for default gameplay's sake, and higher skill levels separating it out.

[bobocz 10]

Yesterday I've found week old Czechgamer.com interview with Ivan Buchta, probably not posted here yet. There are some interesting questions.

This answer is a little bit releted to your posts.

New feature is that we can choose clothes and equipment for soldiers. Do you have any plan to make specially aimed undercover work mission, e.g. infiltration to the base as a local resident?

We will not omit this opportunity, but it will depend on player if he takes advantage of it. Other attractive opportunity of this feature could be penetration into hostile territory masked with enemy uniform. It is clear, that this change should influence how AI will perceive player and can happen, if player is not careful, that he will be shot by ally, who consider him as enemy.

Perhaps it will be related also to vehicles. We will have to wait how BI manage it.

Maybe later I will translate more interesting answers.

http://www.czechgamer.com/mix/369/Rozhovor-s-Ivanem-Buchtou-o-ArmA-III.html

Strange now it seems that interview is gone :eek: , at 12:00pm it was online, maybe its only my problem. In this case here is google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jmGvNHIHln8J:www.czechgamer.com/mix/369/Rozhovor-s-Ivanem-Buchtou-o-ArmA-III.html+arma+3+site:czechgamer.com&cd=3&hl=cs&ct=clnk&gl=cz&source=www.google.cz

Edited July 8, 2011 by BoboCZ

[dmarkwick 261]

Yesterday I've found week old Czechgamers.com interview with Ivan Buchta, probably not posted here yet. There are some interesting questions.

This answer is a little bit releted to your posts.

Perhaps it will be related also to vehicles. We will have to wait how BI manage it.

Maybe later I will translate more interesting answers.

http://www.czechgamer.com/mix/369/Rozhovor-s-Ivanem-Buchtou-o-ArmA-III.html

Strange now it seems that interview is gone :eek: , at 12:00pm it was online, maybe its only my problem. In this case here is google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jmGvNHIHln8J:www.czechgamer.com/mix/369/Rozhovor-s-Ivanem-Buchtou-o-ArmA-III.html+arma+3+site:czechgamer.com&cd=3&hl=cs&ct=clnk&gl=cz&source=www.google.cz

Ooh nice find :)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Heh, interessant! Prior to seeing this I had hardcore doubts about the actual utility of this feature (in the vanilla game - this is easily added into a mission).

[David Schofield 10]

I think Radio Recognition would play in really good here. When you've got Radio Silence, you are at risk of being shot at by friendlies in an enemy vehicle... Or you can break orders. Or you can spread it by mouth to other soldiers that you'll be driving a Iranian tank over goats... Lol.

[dmarkwick 261]

(in the vanilla game - this is easily added into a mission).

Can you elaborate? Specifically, I'm interested in the vehicle showing up as enemy, when in fact the driver himself is NOT enemy.

[dmarkwick 261]

Recent ArmA2 beta patches have revealed the possibility of separating unit side from vehicle side. Can a kind dev please explain more about this ability, and whether or not it can be fluid/moddable? I don't wish to derail the beta threads more than necessary.

[Nicholas 5]

This is in ArmA II

In fact, I used to have a demonstration of this. If you get into an enemy vehicle that has no windows, such as a tank, you can drive as close to the enemy as you want.

As long as they do not see you get in the tank, they won't know who is driving it. When testing vehicles with windows, they were able to see who was driving and shot me.

Although, I never tested to see how BLUFOR reacts to the situation.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Nicholas

[ghostnineone 10]

Im pretty sure if you get in an enemy vehicle it will still show up as red when targeting it (in multi a team mate got hellfired because he was in a UAZ that was showing up a red even though he was the driver)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Can you elaborate? Specifically, I'm interested in the vehicle showing up as enemy, when in fact the driver himself is NOT enemy.

That particular scenario, not so much. I was referring to careful use of setcaptive with certain breaking conditions.